Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux)
Date
Msg-id 20180428161500.vj7nsesujchri7mz@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux)  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux)
Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2018-04-28 08:25:53 -0700, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > - Use direct IO. Due to architectural performance issues in PG and the
> >   fact that it'd not be applicable for all installations I don't think
> >   this is a reasonable fix for the issue presented here. Although it's
> >   independently something we should work on.  It might be worthwhile to
> >   provide a configuration that allows to force DIO to be enabled for WAL
> >   even if replication is turned on.
> 
> "Use DirectIO" is roughly same suggestion as "don't trust Linux filesystems".

I want to emphasize that this is NOT a linux only issue. It's a problem
across a number of operating systems, including linux.


> It would be a major admission of defeat for us to take that as our
> main route to a solution.

Well, I think we were wrong to not engineer towards DIO. There's just
too many issues with buffered IO to not have a supported path for
DIO. But given that it's unrealistic to do so without major work, and
wouldn't be applicable for all installations (shared_buffer size becomes
critical), I don't think it matters that much for the issue discussed
here.


> The people I've spoken to so far have encouraged us to continue
> working with the filesystem layer, offering encouragement of our
> decision to use filesystems.

There's a lot of people disagreeing with it too.

Greetings,

Andres Freund


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux)
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: GCC 8 warnings